Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Tweety21

Tweety21 is back editing. After she made her presence known, an admin un-deleted my sockproblems page (along with other things that, to my understanding, had been deleted, contingent upon her not coming back). I didn't ask to have the page returned, but since it was there, I went ahead and updated it with the new edits she had made. Now she is claiming that she was only banned for two months. Can you please let me know if this is true? I'm still done here once I wrap up my unfinished project (which is completely unrelated to Tweety21), but I don't want to piss off the Foundation if she cut some kind of deal. Thanks, Precious Roy (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

minor edit (spelling) to protected cold fusion please

{{editprotected}} Cold fusion: first (disambig) sentence: "dveelopment" -> "development" [sorry couldnt't put this on appropriate article's talk page as the talk page itself is semiprotected.] Thanks in advance. 131.111.8.99 (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx's RFA thanks

I know you're annoyed

...but calling another editor "WR's pet admin" is never a helpful strategy for dispute resolution. You've been here long enough to know that.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the wording change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this makes it look like you're carrying some kind of BADSITES crusade across the Wiki. Best not to use your admin tools in any issues related to that. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I use that phrase because that particular admin has, for example, undeleted articles by request of a banned user, said request being made on Wikipedia Review. Annoyed doesn't really cover it. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Desysopping is handled over thataway. In the meantime, namecalling doesn't help. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If you feel he's done something abusive or against policy, bring it up in proper channels. Don't use it to smear him elsewhere or to try to get the upper hand in an unrelated dispute or argument. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact. Jimbo knows about it, so do some arbitrators. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's namecalling. It's beneath you. Rise above. You're welcome to discuss the admin's specific actions, how they are related to banned users and/or WR, and why those actions may not be in Wikipedia's best interests. Calling someone a 'pet', however, distracts from the issues – look how much time we're wasting here – and stirs up trouble. Just don't do it, okay? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Viridae undeleted an article created by User:MyWikiBiz using a sockpuppet while he was banned, on a client of his, following a request he made on Wikipedia Review. I was the admin who deleted the article, and I deleted it because it was created by a banned user evading his ban. That is an unambiguous fact. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Guy, thanks so much for your support (from our senior spam-fighter no less!)
--A. B. (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

archive templates at the WP:WQA

I just wanted to drop you a line - we tend not to box-up discussions at the WQA in archive templates. I don't think anyone in the future will revert you, but it's just not common practice, so I thought I'd let you know. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And I do tend to box up, remove, delete and otherwise expunge gratuitous abuse of process by forum-shopping POV-pushers attempting to gain advantage in a content dispute. It is not acceptable to damage the reputation of others by leaving this crap lying around. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not a very productive attitude. Everyone recognized the lack of merit in the complaint. You don't appear to be a WQA regular, and I'm just explaining to you how we do things. Yelling at me about the fact that this complaint was frivolous is not going to help - I'm the primary respondent and the one who made clear the fact that the complaint was not appropriate. Chill out. Just try to let the WQA do its work. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, but this kind of attitude is not helpful and isn't how we archive things on the WQA. Please respect the fact this was a simple courtesy note, and that your urge to archive the discussion is not generally how we conduct ourselves (nor does it really "expunge" anything). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a fine and productive attitude. we don't need permanent memorials to the idiocies of POV pushers. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussions on Wikipedia are not purged or expunged, except in very extreme cases. If you don't like that, you should not take it up with me personally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are, all the time. We delete trolling, harassment, vexatious and uncertified RfCs and all manner of other silliness. If we are prepared to blank sockpuppeteers' user pages as a courtesy (which we undoubtedly are) we should certainly not be reluctant to remove vexatious and querulous complaints Guy (Help!) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again, and for the last time, I dropped you a courtesy note about the format with which we close discussions on the WQA. This is not a moment for you to mount a tirade against people who make complaints you consider inappropriate. Just follow the format of the alert board, or don't, but I thought I'd let you know how what format you are supposed to use to label a discussion as resolved, complete, or otherwise over. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to ignore me, but please note that the user in question has a history of vexatious complaints and I want to make sure he bloody well stops it. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, and that has nothing to do with the format of the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page warnings

A link to what you were talking about would have been nice. Talk page warnings are obviously inappropriate when applied to productive contributors as part of ongoing disputes (I've seen it used to rile other editors so many times). On the other hand, I'm not going to spend my time working out if the user who just blanked a section of WP:WQA with an inadequate summary is a pure vandal, or a disgruntled administrator.

Being an administrator might give you extra tools and powers, but does not guarantee you special treatment. If you want to be treated like an editor in good standing, try behaving like one. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What, you mean you're in the habit of using template warnings without taking even the basic step of seeing whether it's an established user? Wow. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I skimmed your talk page. Try stepping back and reading through it objectively. See what another editor might think of you. -- Mark Chovain 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Try that the other way round. Been harassed off wiki lately? Had anyone impersonate you to try to bring Wikipedia into disrepute? No? Come back when you have. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey - I wasn't the one blanking sections of WP:WQA. -- Mark Chovain 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Now.

You are forum shopping your content disputes in a quite unacceptable manner. It is time to stop it, please. To look at your recent actions one would conclude that every single editor in that dispute, with the sole exception of you, is abusive in some way. I find that implausible. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Forum shopping? Wouldn't that mean that I've been leaving messages on a lot of different user's talk pages? I haven't been doing that, so I don't know what you mean. Kindly, would you please clarify so that I can understand what you mean? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Posting the same rehash at WP:WQA, WP:ANI, user talk pages, etc. all in an effort to canvass. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, since I haven't posted anything on ANI. Taric25 (talk)
I am assuming what Guy means is that he believes that you are doing something like the following. Child goes to one parent and asks to do something. Parent says no. Rather than leaving it at that, the child then asks the other parent the same thing, hoping for a yes. If the answer is still no, the child goes and asks other relatives one at a time, until the desired "yes" is obtained. Now, I am not saying that what Guy claims is true since I have not examined "the content disputes." Forum shopping doesn't have to involve multiposting over lots of people's talk pages. A hypothetical example might be a user who gets into a user-conduct dispute with another. He files a Wikiquette alert. People say the second user did nothing wrong. He then files a user-conduct RfC alleging the same thing. Gets the same response. Goes to AN/I with the same thing, etc. etc. Now, I'm sure we all agree that doing that is a bad thing, and is actually an attempt to game the system. Hope this helps.Ngchen (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I understand, however, I withdrew the RfC at the polite request of User:Egfrank on my talk page, and I haven't taken it to ANI. Besides, User:Hemlock Martinis closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination) with 'Closed to allow improvement; User:Xoloz overturned the SSP deletion with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise closing the case ruling User:TTN not guilty, and I am not going to contest the decision. I have also apologized to both TTN and User:Eusebeus, so it seems to me like the whole situation is over with me going back to List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars working with the WikiProject Video games Cleanup department to clean it up per the discussion. That's why I'm confused when User:JzG thinks I'm forum shopping. Taric25 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on cold fusion

Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to your essay

I've written a response to your essay. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodie...can you send me some no doze so I can stay awake long enough to read that rant? Seriously....had you spent the same amount of time typing all those kb's of opinion, and put it towards our articles, we might be able to conclude that your purpose on Wikipedia is something other than stirring up trouble, looking for false boogie-men and trolling.--MONGO (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
We already know what Dan thinks anyway, because it's in The Register. That's why The Register is a crap source for this story, it starts from an assumption of bad faith and extrapolates form there, exactly as Dan has been doing. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmz, kinda ironic, isn't it... 81.153.124.23 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of AccuCMS

There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Wikipedia article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... is.67.165.106.153 (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So, how is this text which follows below blatant advertising, when it includes material references to major publications like NY Times and Wall Street Journal?

Those articles are not about AccuCMS, they are about the hired spokesman. Notability is not inherited, nor is it contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Images in policy pages

I noticed you restored an image I had removed from Wikipedia:No legal threats. Maybe it's just me, but I find gratuitous (esp. humorous) images in policy pages awkward and inappropriate. Here's another example. At any rate, I won't remove those images if others think they serve a good purpose, I just don't see that positive purpose or how they add anything useful to those pages. But that's not the reason why I removed that image. If the images were merely decorative and didn't harm the appearance of the page, I wouldn't mind either way. But actually, I think that since people are most commonly being pointed to those pages in case of violations/warnings, those images are really inappropriate and detrimental to the appearance and purpose of the pages in that they create a somewhat "childish" atmosphere. Policies are not fun and games, certainly not for those looking them up for a specific purpose. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:23, December 13, 2007


Self-locking

Hi there. I see you deleted this article on November 15, any chance I can get a copy of what was there in my userspace? I'm looking at Self-locking device now and wondering whether it was relevant/useful. --You can reply here -- maelgwn - talk 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy R. Theriot

Twinkle didn't finish this AfD for you, so I did. Hope you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Planoclear! halfready

Please see the investigation that's been done here and provide any additional information you can. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi. :) An editor on this article has requested that the protection be lifted from Race and intelligence. Since you last changed the protection level, I'm checking to see if you're in touch with the disputants or have any objection to its being lifted before it expires in February. Cheers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on 'em. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Essittam

It's Ekajati's on her hosting machine. DYK that the same hosting machine dug up by CU was blocked by Dmc ten months ago...I presume your comment about Mattisse is a joke.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration...

I found the comments you made here to be highly inflammatory, lacking in any sort of civility or assumption of good faith, and completely untrue. I am sorry that you have this impression of me, but if you read my response to your comment, I hope you understand that this impression is completely false. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have worn out any presumption of good faith. You attack every article with a passion that only the Creationists around here match. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, OrangeMarlin. I understand that I can't expect any good faith from you, but please know that despite your lack of good faith in me, I will still assume good faith in you. How about you, Guy? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Levine, you can add me to your growing list of people who don't believe you act in good faith with any article/talk space edits. Shot info (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As with OrangeMarlin, I still will assume good faith with your Shot info, despite your inability to do so with me. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit history showing bad faith editing and inability to accept a consensus nor achieve a compromise position suggests otherwise. Shot info (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently, I am working hard to achieve a consensus at Quackwatch. I have suggested several compromises and agreed to other's suggestions. So, I hope you understand that I am unclear what you mean when you say I have an "inability to accept a consensus nor achieve a compromise position suggests otherwise". -- Levine2112 discuss 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly I do care. I did come here and talk to you, did I not? I would appreciate some constructive criticism from you - an Admin - rather than personal attacks I've come to expect from editors like the ones commenting above. Again, I found your comments on the AN/I particularly offensive and I am asking you to either redact or explain your rationale to me, giving me specific examples of ways I may have offended you. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
At least I'm honest with myself. I don't say "Gee, should I assume good faith or not." When I don't have AGF, I just state it clearly. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And I am honest with myself. And I always try my best to assume good faith in others. Everyone please consider this from WP:AGF's nutshell: If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Enjoining others to assume good faith is usually a failure to assume good faith. In this case, though, you have established your position as an advocate for fringe and pseudo science, leading to unavoidable tension between you and those editors who have as part of their self-declared Wikipedia mission the enforcement of WP:NPOV in respect of fringe and pseudo science. You just need to learn to live with it. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, that's why I quote you on my user page. EXACTLY. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Consider that I am not as you say, but rather as I say. Assume some good faith and believe me when I say that I am neither an advocate of fringe nor pseudoscience. This is a false description perpetrated by editors who cannot otherwise understand what I truly do advocate: fair coverage, article improvement by using the best reliable sources, and NPOV. Know that I take great offense when I am labeled "pro-quackery" or "an advocate of the fringe" et cetera because these are uncivil and untrue. I request that you please try to be more considerate of this in the future. If not, then I will do as you say and learn to live with it, but I think it would be much more pleasant if we all treated each other with respect rather than having to ignore each other's disrespect. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Consider that my assessment is based on your actions. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Race and intelligence

Guy, Thanks for the help at trying to control the maelstrom at Race and intelligence. I tried to get some focus on a cooperative edit in sandbox-mode during the protection period but with limited success. A battle emerged over a new title for the article and then .... Without controls not acceptable at WP this will just be a festering sore in perpetuity. Please keep up your enthusiasm for the project! Happy holidays to you and your family. Cheers! Kevin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OMPT

Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy is a real thing, with much significance to the field of rehabilitation science. You deleted the page which I was building and recruiting the help of others to build. I wonder as to your timing, b/c previous to my edits today, I had to remove links to personal web sites on the page. Regardless, this is a very real sub-specialty supported by numerous peer-reviewed publications, including funding by the NIH. I see no reason for you to have assumed it is only a page to serve a professional organization. If the organization should not have been on the page, fine, but you were a bit over-zealous. By the way, I am a professor at a Medical University...hired to teach Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy ONLY! How's that for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrdpt (talk • contribs)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of LBU. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ra2007 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I kindly thank you for relocating my autobiography to my user page if that is where it is intended to be. I'm still disappointed with the deletion of the OMPT page. I do not understand how to participate in a deletion review on that topic.--Ekrdpt (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jericho

Thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, the anon just logged in. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ra2007/JCSM&action=history

Should we just delete it already? David D. (Talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I requested that it be deleted (possibly before David D. sighed). As explained on the Talk:LBU#That diploma mill talk page, when I saw this, I reserached Jason Gastrich, saw that his JCSM did not have an article, started one in my user space, realized it would meet notability requirements, and requested that it be deleted. I apologize for causing undue consternation. I have no intention of writing an article on JCSM, and if I see one I will recommend that it get speedy deleted, prod'd, or Afd'd. Ra2007 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The appropriate tool for dealing with anything to do with Gastrich is a barge pole. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You should take a look at Talk:Louisiana_Baptist_University#Top_to_bottom_problems_with_this_article. If all of those sources are stripped out, you might be able to Afd the article. Ra2007 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Korac weaver abu-sharr affair

Is there a reason not to delete that and protect the title if need be? Came across it on short page patrol and was going to delete it except that I saw that another admin- you - chose not to. Please let me know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're being discussed at AN/I

Apologies if you were already aware of this but I couldn't see any evidence that you were. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam". --John (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why legistorm.com is considered spam. For the link which was on Anna Eshoo, it easily meets WP:EL as comprehensive information which would not be in the article if it was featured. MilesAgain (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you deleting those links as spam? Sure, they're simply MIDIs, but I thought they were useful. Especially in early music articles, since much of that music is rarely recorded. Jashiin (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He did indeed. Indon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then removed them as spam per the obvious conflict of interest like this diff. For whatever reason the link on Johannes Brahms was not removed so I found virtuallybaroque.com. I was impressed with the samples and thought about adding some relevant links to Wikipedia - *I* am responsible for most of the links you removed. I did not unthinkingly revert Jpressler. I made sure the links related only to the subjects of the article and had audio that I could not find anywhere else or was not linked already. I subsequently emailed James and he admitted that he did add the links to his own site but was not aware of our conflict of interest guidelines. I see adding the links as being no worse than adding links to the classical music section of the Logos Virtual Library, because as far as I have seen, they are all based on midis as well. I am blind so links to scores are of no use to me; I therefore find audio links very important so I may have a slight conflict of interest in this regard. From time to time I make edits like this to add music to articles. Graham87 01:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, virtuallybaroque.com and phantorg.net are both part of the same site - phantorg.net contains collections like the Neumeister Chorales and the Short Preludes and Fugues while virtuallybaroque.com contains links to individual works and collections of works based on composer, theme, etc. Graham87 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as an involved admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornixtalk 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I know exactly what you mean. I find maybe fifty or sixty articles of interest every day, read them, and conclude that I can't really add anything. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So, a little question: I have a reproduction of a photograph of Fellowes, the original published around 1945 by the Windsor, Slough and Eton Express without attribution of the photographer's name, and the reproduction in a book published in 1955. It would easily pass fair use, there being no free alternative available, but is it copyright expired? Guy (Help!) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
* Hmm. British publication. US Servers. This is why I don't dabble in images more than I have to :). Ok, According to this it is 1923 is pretty much all countries (subject to local override). Britain looks to be life of author + 70 but I am not sure if the picture is subject to crown copyright or not. The sourcing on that article is poor. spryde | talk 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh bugger, I can't find anywhere near 1,500 words on Philip Hayes, and having been noted as the fattest and worst-tempered man in England, said reputation having survived for over two centuries, really does deserve to be on DYK! Guy (Help!) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you get my message above ...

About the Phantom Organist links? Graham87 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot issues

"most genuinely valuable contributors". You might want to go back to AN/I and subtantiate that. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to say I respect you JzG, you always seem like the voice of reason, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said during the Dorava fiasco (though I disagree in principal and I supported Giano's arb candiacy). I was worried and dispirited when you almost left a few months ago (can't remeber which month). So look, I'm venting at a wider issue; Im not angry at you in paticular. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I understand. The thing is, if the bot flags an image as lacking valid source or FU justification, there are I think three possible scenarios: it's wrong, in which case you take it to the admin boards and see why it's wrongly identified an article; it's right and you fix the problem by adding a better rationale, or it's right and you try to fix the problem by bitching about it. Of these, the last is spectacularly ineffective but does seem to be the most commonly used. Wikipedia is bloated out with unfree images whose use is doubtful per copyright law and fair use caselaw. It's not an easy problem to fix, the only way to fix it is by everybody being fundamentally onside and working together. Sadly some people seem to dispute the need to remove gratuitous unfree content, hence the problem. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I find a number of flaws in that line of reasoning, but I'm going to cool off and head back to content for a bit. I'll take it up later, but thanks though for being reasonable and discussing it with me. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure, it's a very simplistic treatment of the subject, but I do think that, broadly speaking, decent contributors accept at least that the policy on unfree content exists and for good reason, and will make efforts to comply. I've been Betacommandbotted more than once, the unfree content requirements are shifting all the time, but I don't think the problem is the bot, it's that too many people don't actually know that uploading unfree content is a problem. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats not listening; thats an excuse, rationalision, and v v patronising. Also you are trying to reduce a broad protest into a narrow issue. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to differ on that. I have seen an awful lot of complaints about bots, editors and admins enforcing policy on unfree content; in pretty much every case I can recall the problem was precisely as identified (lack of rationale, improper license, missing copyright holder information or whatever). Someone who leaves the project because we keep removing unfree content they add is not, in my view, the best kind of editor; anyone who cannot or will not provide a proper fair-use rationale for an image can get lost. This is, of course, not what happened to the editor in question; there, it seems to me, an admin excessively focused on a specific problem failed to identify wood due to excess of trees. An error of judgment. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a very nuanced and rationalised agrument; congratulations. But it dodges the wider issue here. Sorry to be so blunt; but are content editors expendable, and do the ends justify the means. (sorry for the appaling spelling bty!, and remember Im not angry at you per say, I'm just wondering) You are by some distance the most open and responsive high up person, so that is why I'm asking. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There does seem to be a frustrating degree of the opponents of fair use constantly tossing up hoops for uploaders of fair use images to jump through; however, on the numerous occasions I've been presented with such templates on my talk page I've actually followed Guy's recommended behavior and (imagine that!) not gone and griped and whined about it, but did my best to remedy whatever condition was being flagged at the time (or, in a few cases, failed to do so and had my images quietly deleted). *Dan T.* (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
See, wherever I look on Wikipedia I see the word "free". Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Unfree content is not free; we tolerate it to a limited degree. Some people seem philosophically opposed to removal of unfree content, others are philosophically opposed to its inclusion. The middle ground is a limited, cautious use, consistent with a conservative interpretation of copyright law. And that is going to change over time, because the profile of Wikipedia is now vastly higher than it was, and we are therefore a bigger target for intellectual property rights owners. We're not the only major website to have had to work hard on removing unfree images which are not our copyright. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ceoil, I don't recognise the distinction you draw. We are all content editors. People edit different types of content, for different reasons. Some people improve the encyclopaedia by reverting vandalism, some by writing featured articles, some by filling in obscure corners of academic topics, some by protecting the project against abusers like User:JB196. We're all here for the same reason, we are all on the same rate of pay. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you are right, and any type of contributor could not survive without the other's support. But supposing you were indef blocked, and you kicked and screamed in defense, as you have seen others do in the same sutuation, and your arguments were deflected to specific obvious wrongs, and were met with comments like "Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place", or "Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours", youd would not be too very pleased, right. Jeez, and sorry and eh, I feel at this stage like I should buy you a pint or something. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh! Well, we have ArbCom, and blocks can be appealed there by proxy or by email. This is an issue that I have sometimes seen with people one one or other pole of a highly polarised dispute, do you have an example of an unjustly banned user who has suffered this? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The specifics are not the point. I said earlire I was going to cool off, and thats just what I'm trying to do. But ugly comments are being fired on the AN/I thread. Look at my last outburst on a users talk. Fairly fucking depressing to have to put up with shallow comments like that. Anyway, merry christmas. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Road cycling tips

Do you include more than winter cycling tips? Specifically, you should include information on training or general purpose tips, since the ones that you provide can be generalized for all cyclists. Some that I go by --

  1. Rack packs should be weighted as even as possible; front packs are often preferred to rear due to distribution of weight. For those that carry it on the back, messenger bags are preferred due to stability and distribution of weight while cycling. (That I learned over time...)
  2. Egg beaters are often not preferred over other clip systems. (I think this may be more personal choice than anything.)
  3. Don't exercise / train every day. While training, do a mixture of sprints and casual riding in a low gear where you can free spin in five minute intervals so that you don't tire easily. Train for one hour a day.
  4. Train to your favourite television show if indoors.
  5. Supplement your diet with calcium (double the intake) to prevent osteoporosis in the hips many years later. Add in magnesium and vitamin D.

If I can think of anymore, I'll add some if that's okay. What do you cycle with? Have a great Christmas season! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Guy

I know we have our differences, but it's never personal with me, and I genuinely hope you have a relaxing and refreshing holiday season. Best regards, Mr Which??? 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you - and over here we call it Christmas :-) Guy (Help!) 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As do I, but not everyone does, and I didn't wish to offend. Best, Mr Which??? 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Rest assured, I am not likely to be offended by the mention of Christ at this time of year. Five carol concerts plus two special services, no ambiguity there... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just been singing Christmas carols to my wife, and she definitely didn't know any of them. I blame it on the Catholics myself. Anyway Thank God for the BBC Christmas Eve Carol concert that will be playbackable on the BBC Radio Player. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Carols from King's, an unbroken tradition since nineteen hundred and frozen to death. It has a lot to answer for: generations of inept boy trebles forced to sing the first verse of Once In Royal David's City... Me, I'm listening to Bach (Radio 3 did a whole Christmas of nothing but Bach a couple of years back). I have an audition for the Reading Bach Choir next term, singing the St. Matthew Passion. Not sure what to sing for the audition, it should probably be something baroque, maybe I'll do For behold, darkness shall covered the earth and the aria The people that walked in darkness form the Messiah, since I know them well. I'm also doing the Brahms German Requiem next term, and planning a music exam, and learning the baritone solos in the Fauré requiem for a performance in June. Likely to be busy, which is good. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Bach's Oratio is undoubtedly my favourite from that prodigious master, indeed I have just put it on, but its not music I normally relate to Christmas, probably because I first learnt to love it one spring May. I guess 5000 miles from Old Blighty and 5 years since I spent Christmas there (as I just reminded my Mum, who knows a thing or two about music, via Skype) I am just feeling nostalgic, cos I knew all the nwords to the old favourites by the time I was 8 years old when I was lucky enough to be chosen to give the Isaiah "unto us a king is born" reading for a Christmas carol concert. But generally Schubert and Beethoven are my favouriteas in this rich genre called classical. Feliz Navidad. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And in another world: last week I was in my tiny adopted California hometown, and it was time for Christmas in Kernville. In the pouring rain (it turned to snow the following night), the local vocal ensemble had us all singing carols. When it came to "Silent Night", one of the women jokingly suggested we do it in German. I foolishly piped up in agreement, and Cheryl (the ringleader) exclaimed, "OK, we'll do three verses in English and then Josh will sing one in German." So all of a sudden, here I am with a bunch of mostly pretty serious Christians, with a live-action creche scene being enacted next to us, singing Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht solo. Luckily for me (and the listeners) Cheryl had picked a good key. Apparently it went well; several of the ladies got all weepy. My wife said to our neighbor, "Nothing demonstrates Christmas in Kernville better than a Jew singing Silent Night in German." First time I'd soloed that song since before my voice changed in 1966... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of WP:SPOILER

Could you please unprotect WP:SPOILER? You said "Protected Wikipedia:Spoiler: Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before, unfortunately." When you said "Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before", were you referring to the reason the page got protected on December 8, 2007 at 22:07 by Penwhale? The protection policy says "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." I believe you are involved as a party to the dispute, having deleted the {{spoiler}} template which led to WP:SPOILER being rewritten without prior discussion on the talk page. I see no reason why WP:SPOILER should be protected for 4 weeks. Could you please reconsider your edit? Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • and.I believe that if it is unprotected you will continue the same stupidv edit war that got it protected last time. I reinstated an expired protection simply because as soon as it expired you started again; it should be obvious to you by now that there is no consensus for reinserting spoiler tags, the time has come to walk away and leave it be. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Moros Eros

I noticed you nominated Moros Eros for deletion. Just as a general observation, it says quite clearly on WP:DEL that "If the article can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

If you think an article doesn't come up to scratch, it's only fair to inform the writer of your opinions and give them a chance to fix the problems before you nominate the article for deletion.

Sardaka (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless being "very, very new" is now an assertion of notability, the january deletion was a perfectly valid WP:CSD#A7. I sent it to afd because it lacked sources; several people in the debate demonstrated a common misconception, that being on a label means you get an article. Wrong. What is needed is non-trivial independent sources. Andrew lenahan's comments in the debate are worth reading. This is a very young band, and most of what is out there is puff. In my view, articles on new bands of minimal importance are best improved by deleting them. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You both make valid points.
Was Sardaka the original article author and was he not informed of the proposed deletion, Guy? (Reading your comments below about being off-line and the time since the article was deleted, obviously no urgency for a reply) Alice✉ 23:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Offline

Due to an ADSL outage I am offline until 28 Dec at the earliest, occasional connection via 3G or BlackBerry. Please keep comments very brief due to low bandwidth on these connections. My mail server is also affected, email will not be delivered. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

This gentleman, and I use that term lightly, has gone crazy on several articles and valued contributors. I think he's pissed about a recent block or something. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Please disengage and send me email, I'm trying to get him engaged by email as well. I hope to be able to find out if there is a back story or underlying issue that I can help with. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is. I reverted a couple of his edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome. But he's battling everyone there. Then he's proceeded to stalk me to several other articles, most of which he has never edited before. But he didn't begin his attacks on me until I put up a fuss on his comments to User:Filll. Look, I think this guy needs to be removed from the project. Otherwise, I am going to continuing editing the articles that are interesting to me. I actually could care less what crap he gives me, it's his attacks on other editors that concern me. You might want to check with some other valued editors like JdW about Guido's propensity for causing a shit-storm. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I really appreciate this comment of yours. I tried to be nice (well, sort of nice) when I first came here. But the crap that goes for an article around here at times can be difficult to take. And I actually have given up on the POV-warriors. Do you know that nearly everyone I suspected of being a sock, was proven to be one (many times by you yourself)? I'm tired of it. But we just can't let the bad guys win. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The underlying issue is the same as with JFW. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for indicating that you have the same pov as JFW and Orangemarlin, which disqualifies you as an arbiter here (as though we didn't know that already). Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If your qualification for an arbiter is that they agree with you, then you may have a long and ultimately fruitless search, especially if both parties (or ratehr, all parties, since you seem to have the same problem with quite a few other editors) are entitled to the same consideration. Please read m:MPOV and note the difference between that and WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Related WQA: WP:WQA#User:Filll (II) and WP:WQA#User:Orangemarlin Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is yet again an assumption of bad faith. We are done here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You are behaving very oddly, Guido. I have consistently assumed good faith of you, but it is my opinion that you have slipped into bunker mentality. This is not good for you or anyone else. I do not think you are one of the bannable POV-pushing kooks, you've never been on my list of people the project would be better off without, but you do seem to be picking a lot of fights with folks who are definitely on my list of people who do real good, and that concerns me. We can't be neutral without both points of view, and you have thus far seemed to me to be a voice of calm on your particular side of the CFS debate, though I admit I've not looked that closely. You sound burned out. This happens when people get heavily emotionally invested in an article against determined opposition. You need to talk to people you trust, and by that I do not mean people who will necessarily agree with you. I take David Gerard's advice very seriously precisely because he so often disagrees with me. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash

SPD V (talk · contribs) - Heads up. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance - protected re-redirect for Gurg needed

Need to have the Protected Redirect for Gurg either unprotected, or change the redirect to Magical_creatures_(Harry_Potter)#Giants. It currently redirects to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but there is no description there of Gurg. See the OOtP talk page and Talk:Gurg for info. Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Series of tubes

An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect User Talk:Callmebc

As the sysop who protected the page with an edit summary of "Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]" but there now seems at least a remote possibility of an unblock, would you be kind enough to unprotect this user talk page, please?

A rationale is to be found here. Alice✉ 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The community would really welcome your input here, Guy, festivities permitting. Alice✉ 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it in due time. Callmebc has been following the discussion be email, and he's well aware of what's going on. --Haemo (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping me updated, Haemo. Ordinary editors like me are often unaware of what may be going on beneath the surface. Alice✉ 04:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired of the POV-warriors

Can you review this complaint by me? I know you're having internet connection issues, and this is Christmas and all (I'm Jewish, this is a day like any other, except I can go to the movie theatres in relative peace), but Ferrylodge is pushing it. I think you're technically uninvolved. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)





Request for unprotection of WP:RS

You indefinitely protected Wikipedia:Reliable sources a month ago. You wrote at the time, "I'm happy to unprotect as and when a consensus is achieved here as to what (if anything) should change." Another admin said at the time that he did not see the need for protection. There was a lot of discussion following but no clear consensus. The page has now forked into Wikipedia:Evaluating sources which contains much of the information which was deleted from WP:RS, and is so pertinent that it should be linked from it at least.

The instructions at WP:RPP say to ask the protecting admin for unprotection before asking there, so I am. I'd like to add links to various parts of WP:EVALUATE in several sections of WP:RS, please. MilesAgain (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of free audio software

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of free audio software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free audio software. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

question

your name is JzG, but how are you "Guy"? how did you do it, I want to change my name (and color!).--Niyant (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

never mind, one of your mates answered it for me. by the way, i nicked your clock. Niyant (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm having bandwidth and connectivity problems right now. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Check this one out

I noticed your Randell Mills nomination. Maybe we should bundly Hydrino theory in with it. Whaddya think? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Private correspondence

Hi. I suppose you are aware that the above article is protected until early Jan 08? That you might consider it protected in the wrong version is no reason to revert it from that version. I would ask you to revert your edit, since the protection was levied to stop the editwar that was ongoing, and to contribute to the discussion at the talkpage. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I echo Riskers thanks for self-reverting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, please self revert. That should really have been your first reaction once the protection was pointed out to you, and I think you know that. I am completely flummoxed as to how you could not see the talk page, the big notice on the page itself, and the "protected" notice when you went to edit. After you have self reverted, I really really encourage you to take a break. You've clearly got the best interests of the project in mind (we may disagree on what that is, but I do believe you care a great deal about the project), but a lot of your recent actions have been unhelpful. It would be a shame for the project to lose you, but there is a real problem when an administrator gives every appearance of having lost faith in the dispute resolution processes that he is supposed to be promoting. I say this as someone who respects your dedication, despite not always agreeing with your positions. Risker (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for self-reverting, Guy. I know you do not like that version; I'm not very fussy on it either, but it is the version that it got locked in. I see it is supposed to be sunny and warm where you are (well, at least warmer than my snowbound region) - maybe this calls for a post-festivities bike ride. Have a good day - and I really do mean that. Risker (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is cold and dull here, but I am listening to Copland which is always sunny and warm. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I'm just arriving on the scene late, as usual. Thank you for self-reverting on the above article last night. I appreciate it and know your intentions were well-meant - Alison ❤ 18:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Debt money

I saw your deletion request for debt money. I would be grateful if you could also look at debt-based monetary system. It is essentially just a rehash of Rowbotham.
On debt money, I am torn. I think this term and its usage to be complete nonsense, but I think this may be one of those cases where it may be better to retain an article that can be watched for POV edits and gibberish. Otherwise, it will inevitably be put up again and persist for a period until the cycle starts again. Neither are ideal, however.--Gregalton (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

legistorm

I was going through CAT:PER and saw a discussion about un-blacklisting it; you were apparently the one to blacklist it yet you seem not to have weighed in on the talk page; I was thinking maybe you were not notified -- in any case, do you have any comment? The thread is at WP:SBL#legistorm.com. —Random832 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Product Development and Management Association

Just so you know, Product Development and Management Association was overturned at DRV on the 24th (shortly after you had your conversation with User:Davolson. I expect that it may stand for AfD, but it was still transcluded on protected titles, preventing it from being tagged as such (obviously). I've since removed it.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I generally have a lot of respect for your edits and I've been trying to wrap my mind around these "Hindu nationalist" issues about which I know nothing. To be honest, I can't tell if the same thing is going on there as went on with the Afrocentrism article and Dbachmann, or if in that case he was, in fact, on the right side. I just don't know enough about the issue to say. I think it would helpful to the parties involved in the case if there was some overview of the nature of the content dispute. --I guess I don't really see the relationship between the two issues-- and I feel the the concerns I raised as evidence are not getting enough attention. futurebird (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. Seems to me there is a group of people, Bakasuprman foremost, who have hitched their wagon to a fairly minor dispute in order to inflame it, and have then exploited that in order to try to undermine dab. That's how it looks to me, anyway. I see dab as one of the good guys, if occasionally provoked to immoderate comments. Wikipedia at present appears to require infinite patience with fools in a way that perhaps was less prevalent a year ago. This seems, oddly, to have grown precisely as Wikipedia's profile has grown; the more Wikipedia becomes the first most important place to get your fringe theory or nationalist POV across, the more people seem intent on demanding inhuman attributes of the admins who try to resist this. I don't fully understand why this is, although the outright denial of the problem by some may be significant. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch Protection

Besides the 3RR and QW talkpage is there a page where the length of the page protection is discussed? The last 'indefinite' block ended in three days, before consensus was reached. Anthon01 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you can help me here? Anthon01 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Karma's sockpuppetry

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. Zenwhat (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of user space page

I believe that your recent deletion of a page in an editor's user space may have been inappropriate, for reasons explained here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It might have been an appropriate use of user space if it were the space of an editor with a reputation for neutrality, but this editor has a reputation for the opposite. Much better to use {{editprotected}} or simply request unprotection. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you please paste the code that I inserted into the draft, into the article talk page, so that I do not have to reconstruct it from scratch? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Reconstruct away -- it'll keep you out of trouble for a bit. •Jim62sch• 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a nice day too, Jim.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fetus

I noticed your comments to Ferrylodge (this must be getting old) regarding my deleting of what are POV images. Please see my comments here regarding Ferrylodge's bold-faced attempt to add POV images to the article. I must commend him on his subtlety in attempting this, but it is clear that the images are used to make the fetus more human-like, and therefore, the casual observer might think, "Abortion is evil, because this is obviously a human." If this project is to be NPOV, then let's put images that are used in medical education (of course, let's remember, I'm medically educated). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I am a Christian but not completely opposed to abortion, I supported David Alton's bill to reduce the date for terminations due to the fact that 24 week premature infants can now be saved, but I do not hold to the "human from the moment of conception" view. My opinion is that the images are acceptable, tey are no different to the images in our old books from when my wife was pregnant. I would let it go, but work very carefully on the surrounding text and sources. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm going with your recommendation here, but if other editors agree my NPOV on the images, I'm going to stand up to Ferrylodge. I am not a Christian (as is well known) and I have a completely private view on abortion. I think that Creationism and Homeopathy is a load of crap, but Abortion is something I keep to myself. Believe it or not, if there is one article for which I will be completely neutral, it would be something like Fetus. I have no agenda there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue

Apparently, I screwed up when I asked 67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) if he plans to constructively edit any pages after his block expires. He's now editing at User talk:67.135.49.211, making the same complaints as usual. I placed a rangeblock on 67.135.48.0/23, which went over like a lead balloon (see WP:AN/I#Jinxmchue IP rangeblock). There's some discussion there and some questions about why he was blocked in the first place. I removed the rangeblock and the protections I put on the talk pages earlier, but there's an unblock request at User talk:67.135.49.177. I don't know if you want to provide some explanation, but I figured you might want to at least know about it.

It looks like I've caused the interpersonal fiasco that I knew I'd cause right after Christmas. Good going on my part. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

In case no one has dealt with it, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_not_getting_the_point_about_sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Imaginative Sex

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Imaginative Sex. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I even want to know what the article was about?  ;) •Jim62sch• 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you can imagine ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe send them over to ED. Jehochman Talk 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

John Gohde 2

I should probably participate in some way, as I spent considerable amount of time trying to get him to change his behavior, especially in Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine. Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNCLE-G-IS-ALWAYS-RIGHT

Two questions: a) Why does that need a WP shortcut? b) Why doesn't it exist? Will (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Owl of Wisdom
I award you this owl because you speak with a great deal of wisdom, and I hope that a lot more people will take a look at your work and what you have to say and reflect on it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)|
Eek. In the Chinese culture, such an award means somebody wishes you grave ill will. But I suppose it's better than a turtle, which means your wife is fooling around on you. Ra2007 (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_26&oldid=1088247571"